ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Minimal comfort feeding in palliative care in the light of the Anscombean-Thomistic virtue ethics theory of action.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ethical terrain surrounding feeding at the end-of-life is emotionally charged and complex. In the literature, the recently introduced notion of "minimal comfort feeding" (MCF), defined as deliberate limitation of feeding or hydration, given only in response to visible signs of hunger or thirst, for a patient with a longer prognosis, has been proposed as a comfort measure at the end of life and as an alternative to voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED) in advance care planning. However, the same term may be applied to two morally distinct acts: 1) providing comfort in the context of active dying, and 2) a hastening death. In this paper, we argue for conceptual clarity around these two practices and their ethical valence, drawing on an Anscombean-Thomistic virtue ethics framework that deals with moral evaluation of human action and the doctrine of double effect. We present two clinical cases highlighting each of these ethical scenarios. Through the cases, we show how intentionality and some circumstances such as timing critically shape the morality of the act. We propose a new nomenclature with the aim of fostering ethical clarity of the morally distinct acts: "proportionate comfort feeding" (PCF) for MCF where nutrition and hydration is provided for comfort with the understanding that it may hasten death but is its foreseen, unintended outcome, and "minimal feeding to hasten death" (MFHD) for cases where MCF is chosen with the specific intention to hasten death.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.